How Much Stupid Can Fox News Pack Into One Paragraph?

ScreenHunter_8166 Mar. 31 18.18

US offer for climate treaty: Up to 28 percent emissions cut | Fox News

It would be difficult to pack this much stupid into one paragraph, but Fox News has succeeded.

  1. Obama is not the US.
  2. The president can not enter a treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate, and  a two thirds majority.
  3. The photograph is H2O, not CO2
  4. Obama’s attempt to cripple the US economy will have little or no impact on CO2 emissions. China will generate 4X as much CO2 as the US in 15 years.
  5. Obama’s attempt to cripple the US economy will have little or no impact on climate.

Fox News is supposed to be the “conservative” news station? What  a farce.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to How Much Stupid Can Fox News Pack Into One Paragraph?

  1. annieoakley says:

    I do not consider Fox News conservative. Didn’t Fox frog march Joe Bastardi out of the building for saying that CO2 was not causing ‘man made global warming’.

  2. SxyxS says:

    Fox news is controlled by murdoch
    and murdoch belongs to the same group of people that controle 90% of the msm via 6 big corporations.
    (but as long as people believe in the left/right scam while both parties distribute wealth and power concentration to the top 0.1% this won’t change)
    “march of tyranny” is a very nice cartoon by ben garrison which explains everything in one simple picture
    (btw-those stupid mistakes are not always mistakes.Sometimes they just want to check how far they can go and wether the audience reached new intellectual lows )

  3. Michael 2 says:

    The senate ratifies treaties, but the executive branch makes them. So it seems in this case Obama can offer anything he likes regardless whether any chance exists to achieve it.

    FOX has never billed itself as conservative. It bills itself as fair and balanced; as if such a thing can actually be measured; but compared to MSNBC, yeah, way to the right of that one.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Only in the eye of those who believe in the US Constitution does the Senate need to ratify a treaty. From the point of view of the rest of the world if the president signs a treaty its good. Even here in the USA they have developed different types of ‘treaties’

      An important side note:
      So far the United States is not a participant in the International Criminal Court. There is however an uneasy relationship between the the USA and the the International Court of Justice. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the United States withdrew from the court’s compulsory jurisdiction in 1986. However according to the U.S. member of the court, Judge Joan E. Donoghue, “..more recently, the United States has increased its engagement with the ICJ especially with respect to individuals who are facing the death penalty in the United States. She says the United States is making considerable efforts to come into compliance, despite serious obstacles within its own constitutional system…” (wwwDOT)

      Back to treaties:
      The Supreme Court since the time of FDR has betrayed this country.

      Treaty Politics and the Rise of Executive Agreements: International Commitments in a System of Shared Powers

      Executive agreements do not require super-majority support in the Senate as do formal Article II treaties. Since the 1940s, the vast majority of international agreements have been completed by presidents as executive agreements rather than as treaties. This major policy evolution occurred without changes to the Constitution, though Supreme Court decisions and practice by the political branches have validated the change. This has led some scholars to conclude that the treaty power “has become effectively a Presidential monopoly” (Franck and Weisband 1979: 135; see also Corwin 1984).


      U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties, which are derived from the Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution, from congressional-executive agreements and executive agreements. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law

      …So for instance, if the US Supreme Court found that a treaty violated the US constitution, it would no longer be binding on the US under US law; but it would still be binding on the US under international law, unless its unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other states [nations] at the time the treaty was contracted

      IF a president signs a treaty OTHER countries consider it VALID. Therefore it completely depends on WHAT type of enforcement is contained within the treaty itself. For example the World Trade Organization (WTO) has TEETH!!

      Instead of the usual trade treaties for the first time a world organization, WTO, with tough sanction and enforcement powers, was formed. More important, decision making would be secret, with no oversight. The most vital issues of economic life on the planet were to be decided behind closed doors.

      Under WTO rules, countries or Corporations can challenge another’s laws. The case is heard by a tribunal of three trade bureaucrats (corporate lawyers). There is no conflict of interest rules binding them, and the names of the judges are kept secret. There is no rule that the judges of WTO respect any national laws, the three judges meet in secret and all court documents are confidential and cannot be published.

      I consider the WTO the trial run for ‘Global Governance’ since it overrides national sovereignty and allows the judges of WTO to overrule national laws. Unfortunately it can be used as a template for a CO2 emissions treaty.

      Eli Lilly files $500M NAFTA suit against Canada over drug patents

      US wins WTO backing in war with Europe over GM food

      EU may face trade sanctions over WTO biotech case

      …..In 1999, Roquefort cheese was among European products hit with punitive 100 percent duties when the United States imposed $117 million of sanctions on EU goods in retaliation for the EU’s failure to lift a ban on hormone-treated beef. Other affected European products included pork, truffles and tomatoes.

      The same year, Washington imposed $191 million of sanctions against EU exports after the WTO ruled the EU’s banana import policies broke world trade rules. The sanctions hit goods ranging from handbags, cardboard boxes, bed linen and batteries

      Back to the USA and the the International Court of Justice.

      The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies

      Since 1946, the United States has had an uneasy relationship with the International Court of Justice (ICJ or World Court or Court). This chapter addresses certain salient aspects of that relationship. Following an introductory Part I, Part II briefly sets forth three “antinomies” (i.e. equally rational but conflicting principles) in U.S. foreign relations that have had important ramifications for the U.S. relationship with the Court from the outset. First, the United States operates on the basis of conflicting principles with respect to the relevance of international law and institutions for U.S. foreign policy. These conflicting principles have been referred to broadly in international relations theory as “realism” and “institutionalism.” Second, the United States operates on the basis of conflicting principles with respect to whether states should be treated as equal sovereigns or as units characterized by inescapable power differentials. Third, the United States operates on the basis of conflicting principles with respect to whether international law should be “embedded” in U.S. law, including the manner in which international courts relate to U.S. law.

      Part III suggests that the International Court was initially designed to accommodate such antinomies (which also exist with respect to other states, to varying degrees) by providing the means for mediating between these conflicting principles. These techniques for mediating antinomies are discussed in the context of the history of the U.S. relationship with the Court from its inception to modern times…..

  4. gator69 says:

    I watch FOX News by pausing my DVR in the morning while I make breakfast, and then I skim through to see what the Obama sons and daughters were up to in Ferguson the night before, and what the other terrorists overseas were up to while I slept.

    The Blaze offers much better programming, and of course we are blessed with Tony.

  5. Reducing the US power generation sector’s CO2 output by 30% will reduce the global CO2 level by about 2.5%.

    • Tom McClellan says:

      Reduce the CO2 level? Or reduce the growth rate?

      FWIW, the Mauna Loa CO2 12-month rate of change peaked at 0.813% for the 12 months ending in February 2013. The most recent 12-month growth rate was 0.591%, thanks to some global cooling (which drives CO2, via ocean absorption or outgassing). And this reduction in CO2 growth has occurred despite rising human output.

      Get the data and see for yourself at

  6. Obama’s attempt to enforce the Communist Mann-ifesto, with the aid of Gavin Bull Schmidt and Kevin Afterbirth, it getting tiresome.

  7. Robertv says:

    Maybe the US needs some help from the Russians to cut industrial CO2 emissions.

    A Russian geopolitical analyst says the best way to attack the United States is to detonate nuclear weapons to trigger a supervolcano at Yellowstone National Park or along the San Andreas fault line on California’s coast.

    Start pumping the water out of lake Yellowstone.

  8. Cornelius says:

    Fox News (along with so many Republican politicians) represents controlled opposition. You’re offered an alternative to the fast transition to collectivism, which only turns out to be a slow transition to collectivism. Recognize it.

    • Gail Combs says:

      DemiRats = Bankster/Corporate controlled NGOs (via funding by foundations)

      ReBooblicans = Corporations controlled by the Banksters. link

      The Banksters were behind the Russian Revolution. link

      The Socialist-Capitalist Alliance: the Fabian Society, the Frankfurt School, and Big Business: Part One

      Brainwashing in Communism and in Democracy An interesting article by an Electrical Engineer from China…..

      • Gail Combs says:


        What global leaders want is people to have the illusion they are in control while the real power rests in the hand of a select few.

        Former WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy was quite blunt about this I see four main challenges for global governance today.

        The last challenge that I see is that of legitimacy – for legitimacy is intrinsically linked to proximity, to a sense of “togetherness”. By togetherness, I mean the shared feeling of belonging to a community. This feeling, which is generally strong at the local level, tends to weaken significantly as distance to power systems grows. It finds its roots in common myths, a common history, and a collective cultural heritage. It is no surprise that taxation and redistribution policies remain mostly local!

        “shared feeling of belonging to a community” is a very important point and one the Globalist have exploited as I explain below
        In another article Lamy further expands what he means by legitimacy.

        Under the classical framework of legitimacy, citizens choose their representatives collectively, by voting for them. It also relies on the political capacity of the system to bring forward public discourse and proposals that produce coherent majorities and provide citizens with the feeling they are participating in a debate.

        Since legitimacy depends on the closeness of the relationship between the individual and the decision-making process, the challenge of global governance is distance. The other legitimacy challenges are the so-called democratic deficit and accountability deficit, which arise when there are no means for individuals to challenge international decision-making.

        In sum, the specific challenge of legitimacy in global governance is to deal with the perceived too-distant, non-accountable and non-directly challengeable decision-making at the international level.

        So the UN came up with a solution to the ‘legitimacy in global governance’ problem It is called NGOs.

        Perhaps the most brilliant move by Maurice Strong was the development of NGOs. It is said he got the idea from working for YMCA international as a young man.

        ..Strong visited his distant cousin, Robbins Strong, in Geneva, who was the Secretary of the Extension and Intermovement Aid Division of the international YMCA. He met Leonard Hentsch whose Swiss bank handled the money of the YMCA. Strong wanted to become an international ambassador for the YMCA, but settled for a position on the International Committee of the U.S.A. and Canada which raised funds for the YMCA.

        This experience may have been the genesis of Strong’s realization that NGOs (non-government organizations) provide an excellent way to use NGOs to couple the money from philanthropists and business with the objectives of government.

        NGOs give young activists something to join. It makes them think they are DOING SOMETHING. It gave them a“shared feeling of belonging to a community” It also controls their thinking. They can join Greenpeace or Organic Consumers or Food & Water Watch or any of a huge number of other organizations. However the one thing NGOs do not do is give the rank and file a voice.

        “Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues,” notes Peter Spiro. “Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots.” The CGG has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations.

  9. Dave N says:

    I could forgive Fox for item 1, since Barry is representing the US when making the “pledge”, but the rest is par for the course, et sequitur ad nauseam

  10. Japan T says:

    “The president can not enter a treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate, and a two thirds majority.”

    He can’t legally but that is not an impediment for this president. Take a look at FATCA Intergovenmental Agreements IGAs and the more recent Iran deal. Sure, the Iran deal has the focus of the Senate now and may be done away with, but implemention looks set to go head anyway.

    “Obama is not the US.”

    Sadly, in practice that does not seem to be true. I think you would agree that much that is going on in the US is against the will of the citizens of the US yet Obama’s policies are implemented all the same.

  11. omanuel says:

    Yes, Steven, leaders of all economic and political persuasions secretly agreed in 1945 to take totalitarian control of the world to avoid nuclear annihilation [1]:


    Thus was humanity isolated from the Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of every atom, life, and world in the Solar System [2].

    For the sake of society we need to let go of blame and work with opponents to restore sanity to society.

    1. Aston’s WARNING (12 Dec 1922); CHAOS and FEAR (Aug 1945)

    2. “Teacher’s Supplement to Solar Energy,” (2015)

    • omanuel says:

      To restore society to sanity (contact with reality), should we remind them that life one astronomical unit (1AU) from a benevolent pulsar that made our chemical elements, birthed the solar system and sustains our lives is much less frightening than life . . .

      under delusional Big Brother?

    • Gail Combs says:

      dmacleo says: “….almost as if its an addendum to existing ratified treaty.
      very odd.”

      It is an addendum to the existing treaty called UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Clinton signed it on 12/06/92 and thanks to the theatrics of Senator Wirth and James Hanson, Congress ratified it on 21/03/94.

  12. Ken Barber says:

    If Fox News is conservative, then the word “conservative” has lost all meaning.

  13. Japan T says:

    “The president can not enter a treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate, and a two thirds majority.”

    That may be the law but look at the other instances of this president not following the law.

  14. Mark Luhman says:

    Fox News is somewhere near the center, it probably left of center, but the rest are so far left most people thing Fox right wing. We have far to many educated and uneducated idiot in this county today they cannot see that, sixty years of liberal education has taken it toll!

    • gator69 says:

      It’s called the ‘Overton Window’. It is the range of thought that is considered ‘average’ or ‘normal’. Because the left has successfully taken over academia, science, and pop culture, they have been able to push ‘mainstream’ thought far to the left. What would once have been considered un-American and communistic, is now embraced by many. and endorsed by Big Brother.

      First an idea is tolerated, then a generation later it is accepted, and finally one generation later it is embraced. This is from where the term ‘Progressive’ comes. It is not about actual ‘progress’, but rather progressing towards a totalitarian atheistic society. moving the ‘Overton Window’ to the extreme left. I am just thankful I am not a child today, what a sad existence they have, and will have.

      • Gail Combs says:

        It is the reason I am glad I never had children.

        I recognized the push as early as the age of nine when my brother came home a devout Marxist after just three months of college at an engineering school. Even when I had just turned nine I could see Marxism had holes in the philosophy you could drive a truck through. The biggest being the bone deep laziness of any and all mammals/life. (Conservation of Energy) A very lazy and nasty big bully for a brother teaches that lesson real fast.

        This inherent laziness is why civilization MUST have a moral code and punishment for disruptive behavior such as lying, cheating, stealing, murder, coveting others property…

        This is also why Islam and Progressivism is actually anti-civilization. You do not have to be a Christian or Jew to see the Judeo-Christian moral code is an excellent platform for a decent civilization.

  15. Slywolfe says:

    I hate to spoil your fun here, but you can’t fault Fox for this article.
    It seems to accurately report Obama’s proposal.

  16. bethm44 says:

    Read the last 4 words, people. “The White House says”. This is called reporting.

  17. LeeHarvey says:

    I’m failing to see the problem with Fox News, here.

    Read the last four words of the highlighted text.

  18. Bob Greene says:

    Have any of you folks worked with state and federal environmental agencies? Obama can promise whatever reductions he wants and can agree to them. If the Senate fails to ratify, then all that happens is the EPA generates rules making it happen. Remember the Endangerment Finding? That’s led to new CAFE standards that will reduce global temperatures to triple o-nothing, the Tailoring Rule to decide who is a PSD GHG source and what they have to do about it and lately, the Clean Power Plan. No Senate approval needed.

    • gator69 says:

      The CAFE standards are working well for progressives! They are killing off those pesky humans who have to drive their own cars…

      According to the Brookings Institution, a 500-lb weight reduction of the average car increased annual highway fatalities by 2,200-3,900 and serious injuries by 11,000 and 19,500 per year. USA Today found that 7,700 deaths occurred for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards. Smaller cars accounted for up to 12,144 deaths in 1997, 37% of all vehicle fatalities for that year. The National Academy of Sciences found that smaller, lighter vehicles “probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993.” The National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration study demonstrated that reducing a vehicle’s weight by only one hundred pounds increased the fatality rate by as much as 5.63% for light cars, 4.70% for heavier cars, and 3.06% for light trucks. These rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars, and 14,705 for light trucks between 1996 and 1999.

      How many deaths have resulted? Depending on which study you choose, the total ranges from 41,600 to 124,800. To that figure we can add between 352,000 and 624,000 people suffering serious injuries, including being crippled for life. In the past thirty years, fuel standards have become one of the major causes of death and misery in the United States — and one almost completely attributable to human stupidity and shortsightedness.

      Those figures are five years old, just think how many more the progressives have sacrificed for nothing. Your kids are next.

    • Bob Greene says:

      I finally read the thing. Every element is already part of the Obama regulatory agenda: CAFE, energy efficiency, high GW potential CFC removal, Clean Power Plan… BTW: 28% reduction by 2025 and 80% reduction by 2050. Have you seen anything other than fund raisers from the congress?

      • Gail Combs says:

        It is actually 83% by 2050.

        • Bob Greene says:

          Page 2 says “80% or more” so 83% sounds like “or more” It’s going to be interesting to watch how we move into this Brave New World

        • Gail Combs says:

          The U.S. and China Just Announced Important New Actions to Reduce Carbon Pollution

          Today in Beijing, President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping made history by jointly announcing the United States’ and China’s respective targets for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change in the post-2020 period….

          In Copenhagen in 2009, President Obama pledged that the United States would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. We’re on track to meet that goal while growing the economy and creating jobs, thanks to the historic fuel economy standards enacted during the President’s first term; the measures to reduce carbon pollution, deploy more clean energy, and boost energy efficiency through the President’s Climate Action Plan; and the leadership demonstrated by a growing number of U.S. businesses, who have increased their investment in clean technologies and pledged to phase down the potent greenhouse gases known as HFCs.

          After 2020, the United States will reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. This goal is both ambitious and achievable, grounded in an intensive analysis of what actions can be taken under existing law, and will double the pace of carbon pollution reduction in the United States from the pre-2020 period. It also means the United States is doing its part to contain warming to 2 degrees Celsius, though achieving that global outcome will require global ambition and commitments from all economies.


          President to Attend Copenhagen Climate Talks

          Administration Announces U.S. Emission Target for Copenhagen

          The White House announced today that President Obama will travel to Copenhagen on Dec. 9 to participate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference, where he is eager to work with the international community to drive progress toward a comprehensive and operational Copenhagen accord……

          The White House also announced that, in the context of an overall deal in Copenhagen that includes robust mitigation contributions from China and the other emerging economies, the President is prepared to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17% below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final U.S. energy and climate legislation. In light of the President’s goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050, the expected pathway set forth in this pending legislation would entail a 30% reduction below 2005 levels in 2025 and a 42% reduction below 2005 in 2030.

          The Son of a Syphilic Camel wants to destroy the USA. No question about it since his admin refuses to consider nuclear.

  19. NancyG says:

    That article was written by the Associated Press. Doesn’t that mean Fox just ran some other news source story, it’s not written by Fox staff. Isn’t it kind of like Obama and Pelosi blaming Drudge Report for their stories….which Matt Drudge doesn’t write but only links to?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *